Standing Committee F

[Derek Conway in the Chair]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Derek Conway: I congratulate hon. Members on their ingenuity in making it here today. We are now quorate, and we can proceed.
 Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 5 - Equality Duty

'The Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c.47) shall be amended as follows- 
 (1) In section 75(3) after paragraph (c) insert- 
 ''(ca) Northern Ireland Prison Service, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Lord Chief Justice, Office of the Lord Chancellor, Office of the Crown Solicitors, Office of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate, Northern Ireland Law Commission.''. 
 (2) In section 76(7) after paragraph (f) insert- 
 ''(fa) the Northern Ireland Prison Service, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Lord Chief Justice, Office of the Lord Chancellor, Office of the Crown Solicitors, Office of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate, Northern Ireland Law Commission.''.'.-[Mr. Mallon.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Seamus Mallon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The clause is straightforward. It seeks to amend the Bill to bring the agencies of the criminal justice system within the remit of equality legislation by including the agencies in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Given their important functions, it is entirely appropriate that those agencies should be bound by that statutory duty. 
 One of the issues that has most undermined public confidence in the justice system is the perception that those in positions of authority do not reflect the community that they serve. Indeed, it seems that they believe that they are outside the remit of the requirement for equality. The fact that a justice review was included in the Good Friday agreement reflected that view. Moreover, I believe that the full implementation of the justice review recommendations will lead to the creation of a justice system that can be identified with and owned by all. In particular, holding the justice system to the same standards of equality proofing that bind government is logical. It will play an important part in the process of confidence building. 
 I am certain that it will be argued that the exclusion of those bodies is justified on the basis that they perform quasi-judicial functions. However, hon. Members will recognise that it is the policies and procedures of the agencies that would be equality proofed, not individual judgments. As policies and procedures apply, as far as possible, across the board to all agencies in the north of Ireland, and to every Government Department, I believe they should apply 
 also to the bodies that I have specified in the new clause. 
 It seems anomalous that the agencies set up by the Government should not be subject to the same equality provisions as the Government Departments that will implement the Bill. It is illogical that those Departments that are responsible for the fundamental decisions that will be required to be made under the remit of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act should not be subject to the same remit.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend anticipates some of the arguments that I may deploy, but I reassure him that I shall not use the word ''quasi-judicial'', other than in this intervention. Will he consider the requirement for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make decisions on individual cases on merit? Is he concerned-or has he considered-that the requirement on the DPP to apply the considerations in the new clause in individual cases might have an impact on his impartiality?

Seamus Mallon: I spoke privately to the Minister about that before we came to the Committee, because it was one of the issues that worried me. I am still not clear about it, and I would welcome advice.
 Section 75 applies to policies and procedures alone, and I cannot see how the DPP or his office could make a convincing case that their policies and procedures should not be equality-proofed. I was at pains to say that the provision would not apply to individual cases brought by the DPP. However, if what we do and what we have already done in many instances in the north of Ireland is to be consistent, the policies and procedures of the DPP's office and of the other offices in the new clause must comply with the equality duty in section 75. 
 I asked the Minister privately whether there were technical or arcane legal reasons why section 75 should not apply, and I should like to hear about any such reasons. It would contribute much to the public's perception of the agencies if they came within the remit of section 75.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is correct that we had a private conversation, and I endeavoured to give him a quick response to his legitimate question about whether there was a legal bar-I interpreted that to mean a legislative bar-to his proposals. I must engage him on the issue, however, because the DPP's essential function is prosecutorial. Whether or not one can restrict the application of section 75 in the way that my hon. Friend proposes is a moot point. Regardless of whether one could do so, I am concerned that such a requirement on the DPP would spill over into his decision-making function in individual cases. I do not ask my hon. Friend to solve that dilemma, but to discuss and consider it.

Seamus Mallon: I take the Minister's point, but I am not competent to give examples of the situation that he describes-I simply cannot envisage any. Nor can I envisage the DPP and his office working properly if their policies are not in accord with the equality duty in section 75. I would be greatly disturbed if I thought that the policies or the procedures of the DPP's office
 did not comply with that duty. I fail to see the distinction between the operation of the policies and the operation of the procedures, or how those could stray into and affect individual cases in relation to the equality duty. People with more experience of dealing with legal matters might be able to advise us as to how that might happen. I do not see how policies would not be amenable to the equality duty or would affect a case in a detrimental way. The same applies to procedures. I cannot understand why the procedures of the DPP's office and the other agencies would be such that they would not be required to be in accord with the equality duty.
 The Minister asked for an answer, but I cannot give him one. I cannot envisage circumstances in which anyone would suggest that the agencies involved in criminal justice should not be required to be compatible with the greatest element of justice in our system, which is the duty on equality in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Lady Hermon: As you know, Mr. Conway, I am absolutely delighted to have followed in your footsteps to reach the Committee safely this morning.
 I have two points. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2000, the Northern Ireland Court Service is designated under section 75 of the 1998 Act. However, if I were to follow the logic of his argument, would it not be correct to say that the office of the police ombudsman of Northern Ireland should also be included in the equality provisions in section 75?

Seamus Mallon: I believe that all parts of the administration should be subject to section 75, and have argued for that forcefully for the past three years. It is remarkable that aspects of the administration that one would have thought would be no problem, such as universities, have adamantly stayed outside the section 75 duty. We may have persuaded the universities-that is a gentle way to put it-that they were wrong.
 I see no reason why the procedures and polices of the ombudsman's office are outside the duty, and no reason why any organisation, especially those that deal with justice, should not be under the remit of that duty.

Des Browne: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Seamus Mallon: I will give way, although I suspect that a subtle trap is about to be sprung.

Des Browne: I am not sure whether I am known for my subtlety.
 Our interesting discussion is a result of the intervention made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and I am not intervening because I disagree with anything that has been said by her or my hon. Friend. I merely want to ensure that he understands that section 75 of the 1998 Act cannot be restricted to policies and procedures. It applies to the functions of a body. I mention that as a matter for debate, not as a block to what he sets out to achieve. I 
 just want to extend the debate to include some of the relevant offices, with an understanding of their functions, which sometimes affect individuals.

Seamus Mallon: This is the heart of the matter that needs to be resolved. I understand what the Minister says, but surely the terms of the required proofing would not apply to specific cases; what must comply are, first, the policies of an organisation and, secondly, the procedures. Stemming from that, those policies would be applied to individual cases, as would the procedure. As to the principles in section 75, how can it be wrong for the principles of equality established in relation to policies and procedures to be applied practically in individual cases?
 It is not as if the equality duty would be impartial of itself-quite the opposite. Policies begin to mean something only when they are applied. The highest standard of application is surely the best. The same applies to procedures. They may be efficient and may look good on paper, but they, too, will surely work more beneficially if the highest standard is applied to them. The highest standard of equality is the one specified in section 75. 
 I remain convinced that applying that standard would be right and that, regardless of any arcane twist of illogicality, it should be in the Bill. I cannot foresee circumstances, in relation to how the Director of Public Prosecutions or ombudsman perform their duties, in which the requirement for equality would be detrimental to the actions of their departments.

Lembit Öpik: What I find interesting about the new clause is the principle put forward by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The Minister's points may be technically correct. I do not want to criticise him, but he sounded a trifle pedantic. If the principle is accepted, there is a case for the change that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh proposes.

Des Browne: Without wanting to reinforce my growing reputation as a pedant, I want the Committee to consider whether the application of the section to the DPP might impinge on the duty of impartiality in an individual case. That might seem pedantic to us, but if the influence of such a provision on the DPP's duty to examine the evidence on its merits and make an independent, impartial decision affects the decision whether to prosecute someone, the matter will be far from pedantic. It will be highly significant in Northern Irish society.

Lembit Öpik: The Minister will need to show how building in the need to have due regard to the promotion of equality of opportunity between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status and sexual orientation and between men and women generally can compromise an organisation's ability to do its job. I suggest that the opposite applies. It would give an assurance to people in those groups-all of us are in one or more of them-that they would not lose out on account of prejudicial behaviour or attitudes displayed by any of the groups or individuals listed in the new clause. I thought that the Minister sounded pedantic
 because I do not understand why the Government should resist including something that is already there by precedent as a result of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for comparable groups and organisations. Why is the Minister not willing to extend it by using what could almost be regarded as a housekeeping amendment to bring all the other organisations into line?
 If this new clause or something like it were implemented, it would be unlawful for a public authority to discriminate or to aid or incite another person to discriminate against a person or class of persons on the grounds of, for example, religious belief or political opinion. New clause 5 seems to be an insurance policy against discrimination rather than a barrier to equal treatment. Can the Minister explain why he thinks that it is a barrier, as so far he has not done so?

Des Browne: The new clause would amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998, designating the listed organisations for the purposes of sections 75 and 76. Section 75 creates a duty on public authorities to have due regard to the promotion of equality of opportunity between each of the nine categories of person. I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for listing them. Section 76 makes it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate or to aid or incite another person to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh said, in essence, that it is important in the context of what the Bill seeks to achieve to give a clear message on the issue. I welcome his general welcome for the Bill and the implementation of the review provisions. He is supported by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. The Government, who were responsible for introducing the provision in the 1998 Act in the first place, share that view. However, care needs to be taken in imposing statutory duties. I sought, in relation to one of the categories, to engage the Committee in debate as to whether that careful attention in relation to the DPP might reveal issues that were at least worthy of consideration. When I intervened, I did not say that that would necessarily be a block to the application of the provisions to the DPP. However, I was seeking to engage people in debate about whether they had thought the process through, particularly in relation to my hon. Friend's concerns about the section 75 obligations. I pointed out that they could not be restricted in the way in which he thought because of policies and procedures. If it were simply a matter of policies and procedures, with no concern about possible consequences, it might be more straightforward. 
 Some of my hon. Friend's concerns, which are reflected in the new clause, have been dealt with already. For example, the Northern Ireland Prison Service is already bound by sections 75 and 76 of the 1998 Act by virtue of being an agency of the Northern Ireland Office. It does not require separate designation. The Lord Chancellor and his Department are already bound by section 76, by virtue of section 76(7)(a) and (b). The Lord Chancellor 
 does not need to be covered by section 75 because, as the hon. Member for North Down said in an intervention, the Northern Ireland Court Service is covered instead. 
 I understand that there is some confusion, which is reflected in the new clause, about who and what is covered under the important sections of the 1998 Act. That shows the importance of addressing the difficulties of getting the designation right. The other bodies listed would have to be considered individually to assess the extent to which they can affect equality of opportunity and community relations, consistent with their primary duties. That is relevant to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which primarily carries out prosecutorial functions. I have no doubt that other administrative functions are appended, but most of the DPP's policies relate to prosecutorial functions and are designed to deal with individual cases. Those cases are decided by the DPP on merit, and there could be difficulties-some would say that there will obviously be difficulties-in reconciling the principle of impartiality and the duty to pay regard to equality considerations in the DPP's decision-making processes. 
 I repeat, because it is an important point, that section 75 applies to bodies designated in carrying out the functions. Although policies and procedures are covered, the provision is wider than that. I also repeat that the DPP's essential function is a prosecutorial one. Insufficient regard has been paid to that point, although I have tried to widen the debate. 
 What value can be added by designating the Lord Chief Justice's office, which comprises only three people? That is another legitimate question. Nor have I become any clearer, between the time the new clause was tabled and this debate, about the scope for the Crown Solicitors' work to affect equality of opportunity. 
 In respect of the criminal justice inspectorate, we should also reconsider what value would be added by designation. It might be more straightforward in the case of the Northern Ireland Law Commission, but some consideration must be given to including that body in relation to section 75. Detailed consideration has been undertaken of all the bodies that are part of the list to which the sections already apply. 
 For the reasons that I have given, we should take full account of the implications of bringing within the scope of the statutory duties under the 1998 Act the agencies listed in the new clause. If, having considered every case, we believe that there is scope for them to affect the quality of community relations, we shall designate them under section 75(3)(a) and (b) of the 1998 Act. If appropriate, we shall table an amendment to section 76 in due course. We are not ruling out the prospect of amendments in the context of the Bill's progress. On the understanding, therefore, that we will look into that in more detail, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause.

Seamus Mallon: The Minister is right that there is some confusion on my part. The core of the problem seems to be his assertion that it would be possible, for what
 he described as consequences of policy and procedure, for adherence to the equality duty to impinge on individual cases. That seems to suggest that he believes that a case that must be decided on merit-I am at one with him on that; the DPP must decide on merit-could somehow be weakened by adhering to the equality duty. I think that that is the Minister's suggestion, but I am still keen to find out how the merit of a case that has been decided by the DPP could be weakened if the equality duty were applied.

Des Browne: I shall try to be more specific, because we should try to tease out the issue.
 The designation under section 75 of the 1998 Act would require the DPP, for example, to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religions. Some thought must be given to how that fits into the process of deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute someone and whether it is in the public interest to do so. 
 What is the balance between the other duties of the DPP and this new statutory duty? I am not suggesting to my hon. Friend that it is impossible to reconcile the two, but it is an important issue.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister for those remarks. Of course, in those circumstances, the DPP must surely decide on merit. There is no doubt about that. However, the need to make a decision on merit does not prevent him from applying the other requirements under section 75. It is stretching the argument too far to suggest a hypothetical situation in which the DPP is wrestling to decide a case on its merits and at the same time wondering what the effect might be on community relations. I cannot imagine any DPP who is worth his salt looking at a case in that way. I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, but I am still not convinced.
 I want to make two other points. The first concerns perception. We have a new Bill that introduces a new approach to justice in a new political dispensation in a new millennium and century-

Lady Hermon: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I want to put one argument to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, because the Minister made a fair point. Section 75 of the 1998 Act states:
''A public authority shall in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity . . . between men and women''.
 If the DPP has more men to prosecute than women, how can he possibly comply with section 75? It is incompatible with his duty to prosecute.

Seamus Mallon: I have been impressed by the legal arguments put during the past three weeks by the hon. Lady and the Minister, who are professionals in that field. However, this is one argument by which I am not terribly impressed because, at the end of it all, the hypothesis is facile. It is facile to argue that, under section 75, the DPP would somehow or other find himself required to ensure that an equal number of men and women were prosecuted, or that he would
 have to prosecute a certain percentage of people from ethnic groups as opposed to people who have always lived in Northern Ireland.
 We could take the hypothesis to an extreme and ask how many Catholics were prosecuted last year, as opposed to Protestants. What is the percentage? How many nationalists were prosecuted during the past two years as opposed to Unionists? The argument is moot, but it is facile because the duty in section 75 would inform the DPP's decisions, but not in a way that would demerit them.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter not of quotas but of preventing individuals being mistreated on the basis of prejudice? That is at the core of the new clause. To interpret it any more pedantically is to miss the point. Exactly the same criticisms could be made of sections 75 and 76. It is not viable to argue that such measures are okay for the areas already dealt with by those sections but not for those in the new clause.

Seamus Mallon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The last point that I want to make on the matter is that we can take all types of hypotheses to absurd extremes. However, I have no desire to do that. The way in which the legislation is perceived in Northern Ireland is important. The omission of the agencies dealing with justice from the section 75 requirement on equality will be noticed. The moot points that have been made will not be considered elsewhere. The question will be asked, ''If this is a new system of justice, with a whole new approach, why, of all the agencies in Northern Ireland, including the Government, who will be subject to section 75, do those that deal with justice escape the net?'' Many will come to the conclusion that the process of justice escapes all the requirements, and they will ask why.

Lady Hermon: It may be helpful to restate the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, which are not well understood in Northern Ireland. That Act guarantees a fair trial, but through article 14 of the European convention it also guarantees a fair trial without discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, creed or any other status. Article 14 is a wonderfully useful aspect of the Act and is combined with the article that guarantees a fair trial. Those provisions are already in Northern Ireland legislation, and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh may draw some consolation from the fact that the statute book will provide for a fair trial without discrimination, even if we do not include his provision in the Bill.

Seamus Mallon: That is a valid point, but the perception will be important. That point is not confined to Northern Ireland. We should always have it in mind that something remarkable is happening and will continue to happen: the Good Friday agreement is rightly becoming a template for conflict resolution in other parts of the world. It has been used in various places, and everything that derives from it-the work on policing, the criminal justice review, the arrangements and the institutions-will be part of that template. I do not want the Bill to be defective because of the omission that I have identified or to be perceived as defective in Northern
 Ireland or-this will become much more important-more widely.
 However, I respect the Minister and his judgment. I hope that I am not being pedantic or straining to read this into his comments, but he tells me that he will have another look at the issue. As he feels that it is worth another look, I shall not press the motion to a vote. It will have to be discussed again, and more convincing arguments for its inclusion will have to made and will be made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6 - Eligibility for appointment as

'No person shall be eligible for appointment as a court security officer pursuant to section 78 if he has at any time in Northern Ireland or elsewhere been convicted of a criminal offence.'.-[Lady Hermon.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause is straightforward and would exclude from appointment as a court security officer, pursuant to clause 78, any person who has 
''at any time in Northern Ireland or elsewhere been convicted of a criminal offence.''
 As the Bill stands, those with criminal convictions will be eligible for appointment as court security officers. 
 It is worth reminding ourselves of the aims of the criminal justice review, as set out in the Belfast agreement and repeated at the beginning of the review. Those aims include delivering 
''a fair and impartial system of justice to the community''
 and, importantly, ensuring that the justice system has 
''the confidence of all parts of the community''.
 Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have tried to ensure that all sections of the community will have confidence in the criminal justice system. I tried to ensure that those with criminal convictions would not be eligible for appointment to important bodies such as the Judicial Appointments Commission, the lay magistracy and-I dealt with this as recently as Tuesday-the local community safety partnerships. I have been disappointed to date and I have worked in vain to secure confidence in all aspects of the judicial review procedure, but I am giving the Minister one last chance to assure us that those with criminal records will not be eligible for appointment as court security officers.

Crispin Blunt: I rise briefly to support the new clause. It seems eminently sensible that people charged with court security should not have a criminal record. It is not the equivalent of employing bouncers through a security firm, when different standards might apply. It is an important part of the judicial process, and the hon. Member North Down is right that we should have confidence in it.
 The standards of recruiting to the armed services have gone up and down from time to time; the Army, for example, has had to reflect on the fact that, although recruits may have convictions for drug or other minor offences, they should no longer be a bar to joining the Army. Although I endorse the general approach of the new clause, I recall that 30 per cent. of the male population has acquired a criminal conviction-I do not know what the figure is for Northern Ireland. However, the Minister may advance pragmatic arguments about the nature of the court service and the sort of people who are likely to be recruited as court security officers. 
 I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response, because if I am right, a clear case can be made for some form of gradation. However, that would need a rather more sophisticated provision than the hon. Lady's new clause. If the Minister advances arguments on practicality, we shall need to return to the subject later. We shall need to be clear as to exactly what offences would be acceptable if people with criminal records were to be considered as court security officers. 
 The new clause is simple and straightforward, and its guiding principle should be our starting point. I look forward to hearing the Minister's objections. If they are practical, they will merit consideration, but the Government will have to come forward with a rather more sophisticated version of new clause 6.

Lembit Öpik: A wise man once said that, simply because a person has a past does not mean that he cannot have a future. Once again, I am sympathetic to the sentiments of the new clause. Will guidelines be put in place on what those recruiting such individuals should watch out for-a case could be made that repeat offenders should not be considered-or does the Minister feel that such matters could be adequately dealt with in the recruitment procedure?

Des Browne: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire paraphrases the words of the wise man. He also paraphrases the Leader of the Opposition, who not long ago used the same words in the context of Northern Ireland.
 The hon. Member for North Down seems to think that my only merit is that of consistency. I shall nevertheless remain consistent to the position that I have adopted throughout in relation to amendments of this nature. As she said, the new clause seeks to bar anyone with any sort of criminal conviction obtained at any time from employment in the court security service. It is the Government's view that that is too restrictive. If a formula such as the one suggested by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) can be drafted, the hon. Lady might take that view herself. However, I suspect that it is the difficulty of trying to do that without being too restrictive that compels her to seek a blanket ban. 
 I have not sought specific advice on the matter. My understanding is that, if a serving police officer in Northern Ireland were to accumulate a comparatively minor conviction-I shall give examples of what I consider to be a minor conviction in a minute-it would not necessarily lead to consequential dismissal. At the moment, a police officer who has a minor 
 conviction is not barred from providing security in a court. It seems inconsistent if, going by my unresearched understanding of the status quo, that remains the status quo. It is certainly the position in Scotland, and I know from experience that serving police officers were often sent to work in the courts after they had accumulated such convictions or disciplinary marks. I have worked closely with people who have policed courts having transgressed some disciplinary code and collected a minor conviction. There is no history of minor convictions and minor transgressions of disciplinary codes preventing people from doing that sort of work. I would be concerned, in the context of the Bill, if that were introduced. 
 Prospective court service employees and contractors complete a form that requires them to declare any conviction that they or their employees have. The court service has discretion as to whether to act on that information. In line with the Northern Ireland civil service guidelines, the court service would not employ someone with a conviction that was incompatible with his duties. The Committee might like to have access to those guidelines; I can make them available to anyone who would like to see them. However, in certain cases-I have experience of this in practice in Scotland, if not in Northern Ireland-for example, in relation to a conviction for a minor motoring offence, the court service would use its discretion. The new clause would remove that discretion and, with it, what has been seen as useful flexibility in the area. 
 I suggest that everyone, including the hon. Lady, would agree that it would be ineffective to tie the hands of the court service in that fashion. The policy is in line with that applied in England and Wales, where the Lord Chancellor's Department uses its discretion when employing staff with convictions, including court security officers. I can assure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Reigate that individuals with inappropriate convictions will not be employed as security officers.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister confirm that an inappropriate conviction will be a conviction for a scheduled offence?

Des Browne: Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, we have heard that a number of people in Northern Ireland have already accumulated what can be described as scheduled offence convictions because of the way in which they parked their vehicles. I have not researched that, but I accept that it is true; it was not questioned by those with greater knowledge of the history of Northern Ireland than I have. I cannot, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman that confirmation.
 However, I can say that in deciding whom to employ in these jobs, serious regard will be given to the nature of the convictions and each case will be dealt with on its merits. All the provisions that apply to all prospective employees in all circumstances will be applied to people who apply for those jobs; they will be dealt with in relation to the equality provisions as they apply to the court service and their rights will be 
 respected in line with the Human Rights Act 1998. In addition, security considerations will be uppermost in the minds of those who make the decisions. I have not a jot of concern that inappropriate people will get the jobs. In order to ensure that people whose pasts are inappropriate for security in courts are not employed, I do not think that we need to try inexpertly-it will turn out to be inaccurately as well-to designate and delineate certain types of people as disqualified from such jobs.

Crispin Blunt: My point relates to the subject of assuring those in Northern Ireland that inappropriate people will not be employed in such positions. A parking offence may formerly have been a scheduled offence, but it is unlikely that a person would be sentenced to imprisonment for it. It is not beyond the wit of the Committee to phrase a new clause to deal with scheduled offences that lead to conviction and imprisonment for a certain time. That would clearly reflect the seriousness of the offence. The Minister could phrase an assurance in such a way, because those in Northern Ireland seek an assurance that inappropriate people, especially those with a paramilitary background, will not provide security in courts.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman seeks to make me try to say what would be almost impossible in a form that would stand the test of time. Where does the concern that such people will be employed in the security service come from? Where is the practice by the Northern Ireland Court Service to suggest to anyone that such people will be so employed?

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister giving way, as he invited someone to say where the concern came from. It comes from the recommendation of the Patten report that district policing partnership boards, as they were formerly titled, could buy in additional policing services. At the time, it was well known that paramilitary organisations were forming themselves into private security firms so as to provide additional policing services. Since then, there has been concern that paramilitary organisations will continue to turn themselves into nicely named private security organisations and will turn up in nice uniforms to provide security at courts.

Des Browne: The Bill does not lend itself to the realisation of that concern. I give the unequivocal assurance that great care will be taken to ensure that people with inappropriate convictions are not given the jobs. If the hon. Lady accepts that assurance, she might agree to withdraw the motion. If she insists on pressing it, I shall resist it.

Tony McWalter: Given the way in which the Minister tackled the matter, I was not sure that he would deal with scheduled offences, which the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned.
 I want to speak against the new clause, partly from the experience of serving on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and at one stage sharing a room with 20 paramilitary loyalist ex-prisoners who between them had many scheduled offences. They worked closely in the days before the Belfast agreement on how to involve themselves in the 
 development of the peace process. I am sure that many of those people could not and should not be trusted. A couple of them have reoffended and associate themselves with the Red Hand Defenders and other such groups. 
 The overwhelming attitude of those ex-prisoners was, as one of them suggested, that he did not want his children to grow up in the society in which he had grown up. In that community, many had felt that they had no alternative but to commit actions that were outside the law. They had felt required to defend their views and their community. Whether or not one agrees that that was necessary, it was at least some people's opinion. Those people were working for a discontinuity in society in Northern Ireland, so that what was once deemed necessary by quite a large number of people would eventually be seen to be unnecessary by the community as a whole. Although some of the people in that room should not be trusted with responsible positions in Northern Ireland society, some have gone on to hold such positions and have worked with passion, commitment and intellectual dedication to the peace process. It is right that they should hold some of those positions in Northern Ireland society. 
 In arguing against the amendment, I am telling the hon. Member for North Down and those who might support her that perhaps the thinking behind the Belfast agreement involved recognising that something had been broken and needed to be mended. Part of that process of mending is to accept that some of those who thought that violent behaviour was necessary in the past could be implicated in the development of a society where violent behaviour would not in future be thought justified or necessary.

Seamus Mallon: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very important part of the debate. One of the most difficult things about the Good Friday agreement for all of us is, was and will be the inclusivity that it requires. That was obvious from the first day of negotiations. Many of us will never forget the first time we were in that room where there were political parties, paramilitary groupings, Governments and everyone else. Inclusivity is difficult, and that will not change. It will not get easier. However, it will-and already has-put distance between what is happening and what happened before.
 The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who is not here at present, said something pertinent a few days ago; she said that legislation is about the future. Already, remarkably, I have found, while working with young people as I do regularly, that a section of the young population is growing up without the memory of violence. It is strange for us, but they do not remember it. It has not been a part of their lives, whereas it was always part of the lives of my generation. Those young people see things differently. Time and the future will look after the issue, and it is important for us to allow that to happen. 
 I want to comment on the implication that, somewhere or other, paramilitaries are sitting 
 looking at the advertisement columns in the Belfast Telegraph or The Irish News to discover which hugely well-paid job in the Court Service might be available to them. From my experience of paramilitaries or ex-paramilitaries in the north of Ireland, they would not deign to consider working for the kind of salary that would be on offer. That applies to all paramilitary groupings. 
 The era of paramilitant involvement, with prison sentences served, is being left behind. We need to think about what will happen in the future if, as the Minister rightly said, we use the constraints of the legislation in relation not to what might happen but to what is past and done, and will not-in my view and, I do not doubt, everyone else's-happen again. I envisage no great queue of paramilitaries or ex-paramilitaries wanting to don the uniform of a prison service security officer, because they have ways of making much more money than any of us could ever dream of. 
 In essence, the Minister is right. I know why the hon. Member for North Down tabled the new clause. We had similar discussions during consideration of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and we continue to debate such issues in relation to the district policing partnerships and Policing Board, but we must deal with the society that exists in Northern Ireland, not the society that we would like to have or the one that we keep contriving, because, in many ways, it is being artificially contrived. 
 It is not right to try to contrive a society or to draft legislation on that basis. Although the fears that the hon. Member for North Down expressed were legitimate, the provision will not have the effect that she envisages. If one or two people with previous convictions were seriously to regard serving the community in that way, as part of their new way of life, would not more be gained than lost? That is a different scenario from the one painted by the hon. Lady. She was right to the extent that I know of security companies being set up by an amalgam of tinpot Hitlers whom one would not allow into any organisation, but they were not intending to serve the community; they wanted another means of imposing their weight on the community while making another bag of money as a security firm. That is different, but I would not worry about the occasional person who wanted to leave behind his paramilitary past out of a genuine desire to serve the community. In fact, I would welcome that. The more that people who have had that sort of unfortunate past move into a different mode, the more we will succeed in what we are collectively trying to do.

Gregory Campbell: Looking at the new clause, I have no difficulty supporting its underlying emphasis and aim. More often than not during the past few weeks, the Minister has not convinced me of his rationale, but he is coming close in his opposition to new clause 6. I am struck by the level of offence and the length of time after conviction to which the new clause would apply. Irrespective of how relatively minor the offence committed, the new clause would debar the person from consideration. For that reason, I support the emphasis of the new clause, but I fully understand the
 Minister's explanation as regards people who otherwise might be considered for other positions but debarred from this one.
 I must comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. Sometimes, in the rarefied atmosphere of Westminster, it may be relatively easy to become detached from what is happening in Northern Ireland. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intentionally wanted to be detached from that reality, but he succeeded when he suggested that some young people growing up now might not remember the violence. In the past three years, there has been a massive increase in paramilitarism and a horrendous increase in punishment beatings. A bomb went off in my constituency at the weekend, very seriously injuring a security officer-and that was not the first, second, third or fourth such incident. Numerous attacks have taken place. 
 In the past three years, the violence has not improved but got worse-not directly as a result of the Belfast agreement, but that has certainly not improved matters. I have spoken so far of the violence alone, but the sense of isolation is another factor in many communities in Northern Ireland. 
 I shall wait to see whether the hon. Member for North Down will withdraw her new clause in the light of the Minister's remarks, or if the Minister is prepared to contemplate rewording it. From what he said, and in the interests of retaining the consistency to which he alluded, I do not imagine that he will do that. 
 In conclusion, I repeat that I have empathy with the underlying emphasis of the new clause. However, I draw attention to the fact that, if the clause were to succeed, a person who had been convicted of a criminal offence would not be eligible to be employed as a court security officer. In contrast, the Belfast agreement, from which the review has emanated, would put such people into the Government of Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: I am not at all surprised that the Minister has not changed his position-in fact, I would have been amazed had he done so. I expected him to be consistent in his arguments, and he has proved me right in that respect.
 By tabling the new clause, I wanted the Minister to address the serious issue of gaining the confidence of all parts of the community, which is a central aim of the review. In that context, it was worth opening a discussion about whether all sections of the community would have confidence in court security officers who have previous convictions. I also wanted to extract from the Minister a guarantee that persons who apply to be court security officers will be vetted, and he gave a generous reassurance on that point. 
 It is worth mentioning an argument against the new clause. I am perfectly aware that the vast majority of people who have been involved in terrorist activities have never been convicted of those activities, so would not fall within the remit of the new clause. 
 I appreciate the comments of the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) and for Newry and Armagh, and the fact that on this rare occasion I have the support of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell)-in principle. However, he, too, gave the understanding that the Minister's reassurances would appease-if that is the right word-him and would reassure him that court security officers would be vetted. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 81 - Excepted matters: judicial office-holders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Des Browne: I rise to speak about this clause only because it refers to the issues surrounding the distinction among excepted, reserved and transferred matters, which have periodically exercised the Committee. It is incumbent upon me to explain, given some the questions that have been asked, although I will address some of those questions later.
 The review recommended that the appointment and removal of judicial office holders should be devolved. The Northern Ireland Assembly cannot legislate about the appointment or removal of specific judicial office holders, because it is an excepted matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The clause provides for the appointment and removal of judicial office holders to become a reserved matter in preparation for the transfer by order of those powers from Westminster to the Northern Ireland Assembly once responsibility for justice matters is devolved, as recommended by the review. 
 Hon. Members will appreciate that it is not possible to devolve matters to the devolved Administration by order under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 from the excepted category directly to the transferred category. An order can only devolve reserved matters, so the clause provides for the appointment and removal of judges to be recategorised as a reserved matter. 
 The review recommended that judges' salaries should continue to be fixed by reference to their equivalents in England and Wales, which are within the remit of the Senior Salaries Review Board. As a result, remuneration, superannuation and other terms and conditions of holders of judicial offices-other than those relating to removal from office-are to remain an excepted matter. Determination of the salaries of the president and other members of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland is, however, the responsibility of the department of finance and personnel, and will remain so. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 82 and 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 12 agreed to. 
 Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 - Repeals and revocations

Des Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 121, line 41, at end insert-
'In Schedule 2, the entry relating to the Lord Chief Justice's Office.'.
 The amendment provides that the Lord Chief Justice's office will no longer be a department of the Supreme Court within the meaning of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The amendment is consistent with the review recommendation, reflected in clause 13, that the Lord Chief Justice should have a wider role, covering the judiciary and the magistracy, instead of just the Supreme Court. It is a positive signal of the Government's intent that the office of Lord Chief Justice should embrace the whole judicial service.

Crispin Blunt: I should just place it on record that it is a pity that we were not able to debate clause 13.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Interpretation

Des Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 67, line 30, at end insert 'and'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 79.

Des Browne: The clause provides for the interpretation of a number of terms used in the Bill and includes a definition of the term ''magistrates court''. However, it is already defined in schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which applies to the Bill. The amendment removes the definition of ''magistrates court'' from clause 86 as it is not considered to redefine the term for the purposes of the Bill.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 79, in page 67, line 32, leave out from '(c. 23)' to end of line 34.-[Mr. Browne.] 
 Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 - Transitionals and savings

Seamus Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 209, in page 67, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
 This amendment and the subsequent one refer to the new office and the new role of the DPP. It has been touched on in debate at various times and in various ways. I regard the clause as crucial and the amendment as an important one.

Derek Conway: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman develops his theme, let me say that I am happy to group with amendment No. 290 amendment No. 291, in clause 87, page 68, line 13, leave out subsection (4). Both amendments stand in his name, and he will be able to broaden his comments.

Seamus Mallon: Thank you, Mr. Conway. The purpose of the amendments is shared.
 The review group, whose recommendations we have considered, expressly recommended the establishment of a new, independent prosecution service, with new arrangements for prosecutions and new measures to ensure its accountability. In paragraph 4.174, it foresaw that the implementation of its recommendations would entail 
''building upon the responsibilities and work of the existing Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions.''
 However, it underlined that it would also involve 
''taking on new work, a different approach to aspects of its existing work and substantial organisational change.''
 The review group went on to make recommendations about how the new Public Prosecution Service would be staffed and organised to ensure that it would be able to discharge its duties. Those duties include the appointment of the DPP and his deputy through open competition before a selection panel, in accordance with procedures established by the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland in recommendation 59 of the criminal justice review. Subsection (2) defers the implementation of that important recommendation until some unspecified time in the future. It is worth considering it in detail, because it is not only contrary to the spirit of the review's recommendation but it is ill-defined, so implementation will probably not take place for some time. 
 The existing DPP might become the new DPP under the new dispensation. Let us assume that he or she is appointed at 35 years of age. That would give him or her ample time to have obtained 10 years' experience. It could therefore be 30 years before that crucial part of the recommendations would be implemented, notwithstanding the possibility that the Attorney-General might extend the period of tenure for the DPP past the age of 65, in which case it could take longer. That point might be a little over-stated, but it is true. We should not agree to defer the implementation of that crucial recommendation. 
 We do not know who the DPP or the deputy DPP will be when clause 31 comes into force. Whoever it is, the review's recommendation will not be implemented until one or other of those people reaches the statutory retirement age of 65, which may be extended by the Attorney-General. I find that most unsatisfactory because the new beginning and approach of the DPP will be the flagship for the Bill. It will be the flagship for the entire project of establishing a criminal justice system that will command the respect and allegiance of all. If that flagship does not leave port until some point way down the line, the entire project will be damaged. 
 If my hypothesis is right, I will not live to see the new dispensation in operation, and neither will many hon. Members present. Nevertheless, it is the crucial element of change in the Bill. The clause does not stand up, and should be amended. I made that point in a previous debate and I make it again today. We have already debated the review group's recommendation that the appointment of the DPP should be through open competition before a selection panel in 
 accordance with procedures established by the Civil Service Commissioners in Northern Ireland. When does that apply? Does it apply to the DPP who is in place and would become the new DPP? It will not happen for some time.

Des Browne: I think that my hon. Friend will find the unequivocal answer in subsection (2), and that he wants to omit that subsection because the existing DPP and deputy DPP would otherwise remain in office.
 I invite my hon. Friend to address his comments to a more general point. He may agree that the transition cannot be made immediately, but it must not take so long that hon. Members will not be here to see it. Can he suggest how an achievable time frame could be fixed in statute?

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister for recognising that there is a problem. I am speaking off the cuff, but one way would be for the DPP and deputy DPP to resign formally at implementation, as has happened elsewhere, so that the process recommended in the review can be applied-that is, open competition under the Civil Service Commission procedure. The DPP and deputy DPP may be reappointed but at least the recommendation would have been applied, or better qualified and more suitable people may be appointed, in which case it would be doubly necessary for the recommended procedure to apply.
 The Minister would be right to ask about natural justice. Natural justice for the DPP and deputy DPP must be considered, but we are discussing the flagship that will build up support, and if that takes upwards of 30 years, 20 years or even 15 years it will be deficient.

Des Browne: I am concerned that there is an inconsistency, which must be highlighted. We are all interested in the transition taking place as quickly as possible, but, other than the current DPP and deputy DPP, who has the expertise necessary to ensure that the transition in Northern Ireland takes place as efficiently and quickly as possible? Who else has the experience of the system in Northern Ireland that will be essential to ensure that the transition takes place speedily and efficiently?

Seamus Mallon: The Minister makes a valid point, but what is most important? I do not want the DPP or his deputy to be turfed out of their jobs, but there are various ways of making the transition. A Chief Constable aided the transition in the Police Service by announcing that he would retire. That is not an exact analogy, but does the Minister agree that a long wait for the most important part of the legislation to be operable and seen to be operable will have a substantial effect on reaction to the entire Bill?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for his patience yet again. The analogy that he draws with the Chief Constable is strong and good. There is no question but that the successful transition to the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been greatly aided by the significant expertise and ability that the Chief
 Constable has brought to the job. He knew where the force would be, and he knew where he wanted it to go. We are all grateful to him for the way in which he assisted. We need to keep such abilities in the system to ensure the transition. The other important aspect of the analogy is that it is a decision for him when and if he retires.

Seamus Mallon: I do not dispute the essence of the point that the Minister makes. Perhaps we could have avoided the impasse had some previous amendments been taken a little more seriously, but that did not transpire.
 The far-reaching proposals for the new prosecution service were expected to be implemented rapidly. Many see the early and complete introduction of the new arrangements as a fundamental and crucial test of the determination of the Government to create a criminal justice system that can command the support of all. Page 33 of the implementation plan states that the new 
''arrangements will apply to appointments taking place after devolution''.
 However, nothing in the criminal justice review suggests that they should be deferred until then. On the contrary, the review group specifically referred to the need for a new approach for substantial organisational change. Subsection (2) is an example of selective implementation of the recommendations, and should be removed. 
 Following your ruling, Mr. Conway, I would like to make observations on amendment No. 291, which would leave out subsection (4), the provisions of which cast grave doubt on the commitment to break with the past and introduce real change to the prosecution service. Subsection (4) will allow the service to defer indefinitely the full implementation of one of the key recommendations of the report. It will allow the DPP-in all probability, barring natural wastage, it will be the DPP who was in place before the change-to comply only partially with the duty to take over the conduct of criminal prosecutions from the police. It is a fundamental weakness that he has to consider whether it is ''reasonably practicable'' for him to do so. 
 One of the Minister's arguments for the transfer of the existing DPP into the post is that it would provide continuity. One assumes that in the intervening period the administrative procedure and work would have taken place, and that the loose term ''reasonably practicable'' should not apply. Under the Bill, the DPP can fulfil as much or as little of the duty as he wants. It will be entirely for him to decide when he is prepared to comply with his statutory duties, which is bound to be unsatisfactory in every sense.

Des Browne: The provision is qualified by reasonable practicability. It is not a carte blanche for the director not to do what he is required to do under the other provisions; it gives him the necessary flexibility, under a programme that is rolling out, to take on responsibility for the work from the police service as and when it is practicable and reasonable to do so.
 What my hon. Friend says is right; in fact, progress has already been made on preparations for the roll-out, and we expect that they will be well advanced by the end of next year. I can give the Committee and others who need it reassurance that there will be considerably more detail in the new implementation plan that we will publish after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Seamus Mallon: Yes, but that is not compatible with the recommendation of the review group. Recommendation 17, which is about the prosecution service, is unambiguous:
''in all criminal cases . . . responsibility for determining whether to prosecute and for undertaking prosecutions should be vested in a single independent prosecuting authority.''
 However, the provision allows the DPP the latitude to determine whether it is reasonably practical and allows him to take on as much or as little as he decides. That is indicated by the wording of subsection (4), which is worth a read in the interests of the English language, if nothing else: 
''If on the coming into force of subsection (1) of section 32 it is not reasonably practicable for the Director to comply with the duty imposed by that subsection to its full extent, until it is reasonably practicable for him to do so that subsection is to be taken to impose on him a duty to take over the conduct of such descriptions of the proceedings specified in that subsection as it is reasonably practicable for him to conduct.''

Des Browne: It is clear.

Seamus Mallon: It is as clear as can be. The subsection says, in a convoluted way, that the new DPP will implement the crucial element of the measure when he decides that it is reasonably practicable to do so.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend's ability to paraphrase the subsection clearly, if not in legislative language, demonstrates just how well written it is. I understand his arguments, but the review recommendations must be turned into practical reality. Who should make the decision?

Seamus Mallon: I had always thought that we would decide some of the important aspects as part of the legislative process rather than leaving a crucial element such as this to the DPP. The Minister knows that the measure is also contrary to the report's recommendation on when the new arrangements should be introduced.

Crispin Blunt: I am following the discussion with interest. At present, the DPP is responsible for about a quarter of the prosecutions, which are for serious offences. That is the practical reality. At the moment, some three quarters of prosecutions are the responsibility of the police, nearly all for minor offences. We shall go through a period of transition when the DPP takes responsibility for all of those. The clause simply puts a practicality test on the least important prosecutions currently conducted by the police with regard to when the bulk of that work can be taken over by the DPP. It enables the transfer of functions and the devolution of justice to happen earlier than would be the case if the practical transfer were not yet possible because the DPP did not have the resources to make those decisions and take on all those cases.

Seamus Mallon: I take the point, but is it not much more important that we recognise recommendation 30 of the review group on timing? It states:
''the timing of commencement of legislation that will flow from our recommendations''-
 that means what we have been doing for the past three weeks- 
''should be planned so as to ensure that all necessary resources, preparation and training are in place and completed before procedural changes are introduced.''
 Are we satisfied that that recommendation is being met and shall be met? Are those of us charged with producing the legislative changes satisfied that our time frame and the time frame to be given to the incumbent DPP will not be restricted by the open-ended way in which the new DPP-who will be the old DPP-can decide about when it is reasonably practical to take on all prosecutions, including those now dealt with by the police? The Minister might have some views on that, and I shall be interested to hear them. 
 The implementation plan openly envisages that 
''the new service will extend its role on an incremental basis''.
 When I see phrases such as ''incremental basis'' in implementation plans, I wonder about the speed at which matters will operate. I have seen implementation plans promise incremental change before, and speed was not then of the essence. 
 I believe that the provision is a flaw in the Bill and that it is not what the review group recommended. I ask that we change it so that we have full and speedy implementation of the new arrangements for conducting prosecutions. We expect the necessary resources to be made available for that to happen. That is the minimum requirement if people are to believe that there is real change in the system. We do not want delay, nor do we want piecemeal implementation. Subsection (2) is, in many ways, an open invitation to those who want to resist change, which some people want, including some in the justice system. To leave things as they are, under the pretence that a new dispensation is taking place, will be fatal to the entire project's prospects of success. 
 I believe that we who are charged with drawing up the legislation should make decisions that do not allow lax, open-ended, arbitrary, incremental decisions to be made by someone given the absolute authority to implement a crucial, core element of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: A detailed case has made for the big bang theory, for having a day-zero start date for prosecutions by installing a new Director of Public Prosecutions and transferring the responsibilities lock, stock and barrel on one particular day. That is what the Crown Prosecution Service experienced in England and Wales, and it is not an experience that I invite the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to take to Northern Ireland.
 The test will be between delay and piecemeal implementation, and the hon. Gentleman will not be able to meet both the objectives that he set himself by saying that we do not want either. A sensible, practical approach will have to be taken to handing over full 
 responsibility for all cases to the new DPP. The Government are right to be fully aware of the findings of the Glidewell report. If we do not learn from our experiences, there is not much point in having them. We should not repeat the mistakes that have been made in other jurisdictions. 
 I anticipate that the Minister will resist the amendment. I understand the philosophical point that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to make about the need for a new start. I do not wholly share the sentiments behind the amendment, but I understand part of the argument. No one has suggested any inadequacy in the present DPP in Northern Ireland. No one has ever made that suggestion to me. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman is not making that suggestion- 
Mr. Mallon indicated dissent.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. We are dancing on the head of a pin. The Bill will deliver the objectives that we all seek without the amendment. I hope that he will withdraw it.

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is aware of this, but from where I sit the window is behind him when he stands to speak. I therefore see a silhouette bathed in an almost spiritual light. I hesitate to tussle with a saint. I have faith in the hon. Gentleman, but I am more agnostic about the text. Was religion ever otherwise?
 The hon. Member for Reigate expressed concern about the big bang theory. Knowing something about astronomy, I know that the alternative is the steady state theory, where nothing ever changes. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned that, as things stand, the new start of which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has often spoken could be delayed. Nevertheless, I am persuaded by the Minister's intervention that there needs to be some opportunity to sustain continuity in the DPP's office. Indeed, subsection (4) allows some flexibility with 
 regard to when the new provisions should come into effect. 
 As the hon. Member for Reigate said, the philosophical standpoint expressed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is consistent with his previous statements and is robust. None the less, on the basis of other experience, I feel that the new start will not be unduly compromised by the built-in flexibility. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Des Browne: I note what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire says. I know that he has an interest in and knowledge of astronomy, but I found it mildly amusing to have a Liberal Democrat talk about a steady state. I am sure that his understanding of it has been of no political assistance to him.
 Amendment No. 209 would remove the provision that would continue the appointment of the current Director and Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in the new Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Reigate, I understand the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh that the new prosecution service should represent a completely fresh start with new personnel. I understand why he makes those arguments, although I do not agree with all his reasons. What my hon. Friend suggests is not practicable or desirable. 
 The department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is a new department and, as the hon. Member for Reigate noted, it will be going through a massive expansion. It will also be taking on a large range of new functions. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Reigate, the knowledge and experience of the current director and deputy director will be crucial in ensuring that the change is successful. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.